Document NO8q9OBKjN9Z41Eor60D6Ekb

COPY January 9 19 3 6 O.D. 5050 Ur. Wnu'T. Blake, Commissioner, The Industrial Commission of Ohio, Building. Dear llr. Blake: The original application in this claim was filed on July 20, 1928. Claimant alleged he was suffering from what the doctors described at that time as peripheral neuritis. He claimed the condition came ahout as a result of his work while machining test steel bars be tween Hay 27, 1926 and April 1, 1928. The claim was investigated by our Canton Branch Office manager. On November 13, 1928 the Commission referred the claim to Dr. Obetz for investigation and report. Dr. Obetz visited the plant and wit nessed the operations in the laboratory, ana reviewed all the proof including the medical proof on file at that time. Dr. Obetz rec ommended disallowance of the claim in a full, written review, for the reason that the claimant's disability was not the result of any oc cupational disease arising out of his employment. On January 8, 1929 claim was denied by the Commission for the reason that the proof failed to show that the claimant's disability was the result of a compensable occupational disease. On August 7, 1935 the claimant filed an application for modification of a,ard accompanied by considerable medical proof including a clin ical diagnosis made at The Mayo Clinic, where the claimant's legs were amputated. The proof was then reviewed by our Legal Department and a statement of facts prepared. A hearing was had before the Commission on October 22, 1935 on this statement of facts, which in cluded a review of ail t.;e proof up to date. I The referee hearing the case before the Commission discussed this case with Dr. Obetz and Dr. Hayhuist on numerous occasions. Doctor Obetz prepared a second written review of the base after conferring with Dr.Bayhurst. Dr. Obetz felt that the exposure was very slight ana so mild as not to have affected the claimant's pre-existing vascular disease of his blood vessels. Hr. Sain of our Safety Department visited the plant of the employer and witnessed the various operations performed by the claimant in the laboratory of the employing company. lie feltthat the operation required the use of such minute quantities of lead as not to have affected claimant's physical condition. This claimant'was further discussed with all three members of the Commission, Mr. Gregory being consulted on three occasions. An order was placed on the claim on December 31, 1935, disallowing claim, and dismissing the application for modification of award fi^ed August 7, 1935, for the reason that the proof indicated that if tr.3 claimant suffered any exposure at all to lead poisoning, it v.as so slight in its nature that it oould not possible nave affected his conceded pre-existing condition. Furthermore, the proof indicates that it has never been definitely established that the claimant did at any time suffer from head poisoning. Ine orig nal condition vrns described as "peripheral neuritis", while some of the other symptoms suggested are not unusual, or if so, common to many other types, of disease. Very truly yours, G. K. THUNICK, GIAIMS REF3RE3 KE 001689?)